Posts from my facebook group 'dharma connection'.
What is Nirvana?
The Buddha described two elements of Nibbana. The Nibbana element
with residue remaining is the destruction of lust, hatred, and
delusion attained by a Noble One (arahant), with the residue itself
being a reference to "his five sense faculties remain unimpaired,
by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable
and feels pleasure and plain". The Nibbana element without residue
remaining is that which “all that is felt, not being delighted,
will become cool right here” (Iti 44). The common interpretation is
that the first Nibbana element is attained when the Arahant/Noble
One is still alive, and the latter comes in the passing away of the
Noble One.
For a long time I thought along this line, but as Geoff mentions,
there is an alternative interpretation:
Geoff:
To paraphrase Ven. Ñāṇananda, it's not that an arahant gets half of
nibbāna upon awakening, and the other half when s/he dies. Upon
awakening they have already "gone out," they are "cool," and they
have reached "the end." Even parinibbāna can be used to refer to a
living arahant.
The dhamma isn't about some sort of thanatos desire to attain
completion in the grave. It's about realizing "the end" here and
now.
Geoff:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=320
"retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might
"function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation"
I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened
mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's
experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the
seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The
sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the
known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:
"‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the
heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be
merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.
When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard
will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the
known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that.
When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there.
When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither
here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of
unsatisfactoriness."
Secondly, the absence of specific fabrication (abhisaṅkharoti) or
volitional intention (abhisañcetayati) towards either existence or
non-existence. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:
"One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention
towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific
fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or
non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world. Not
clinging, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains
complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further
here.’"
Cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 04:
"What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense
here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared
consciousness, abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. An arahant's experience of the
cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of
the cessation of name-and-form."
And Nibbāna Sermon 06:
"The more one sees preparations (saṅkhāras) as preparations,
ignorance is dispelled, and the more one dispels ignorance, the
preparations lose their significance as preparations. Then one sees
the nature of preparations with wisdom as signless, desireless, and
void. So much so that, in effect, preparations cease to be
preparations.... The relation of saṅkhāras to ignorance is somewhat
similar to the relation a drama has to its back-stage preparations.
It seems, then, that from the standpoint of Dhamma the entire
saṃsāra is a product of specifically prepared intentions, even like
the drama with its back-stage preparations...."
The phrase saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ (e.g. M III 299), 'prepared
and dependently arisen', suggests that the prepared nature is also
due to that contact. What may be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa (S III
58), 'specifically prepared consciousness', is that sort of
consciousness which gets attached to name-and-form. When one sees a
film show, one interprets a scene appearing on the screen according
to one's likes and dislikes. It becomes a thing of experience for
him. Similarly, by imagining a self in name-and-form, consciousness
gets attached to it. It is such a consciousness, which is
established on name-and-form, that can be called abhisaṅkhata
viññāṇa. Then could there be also a consciousness which does not
reflect a name-and-form? Yes, there could be. That is what is known
as anidassana viññāṇa, or 'non-manifestative consciousness'.
And thirdly, consciousness which is unestablished (appatiṭṭha
viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:
"When that consciousness is unestablished, not increasing, not
concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being
steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited,
he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is
ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there
is nothing further here.’"
As for the qualm that this last passage refers to the death of an
arahant, the phrase: "Unexcited, he personally attains complete
nibbāna. He discerns that, 'Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further
here,'" is the standard paricope referring to the time of
awakening, i.e. a statement of the attainment of arahant fruition
(e.g. DN 15, MN 105, etc.), and not the time of death of an
arahant.
The above passages referring to the cognition of an arahant are
succinctly presented in AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:
"Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when
seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does
not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.
He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be
heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a
to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.
He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be
sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a
to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.
He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be
known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a
to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower."
Ven. Ñāṇananda considered the Kāḷakārāma Sutta important enough to
write a text on it.
All the best,
Geoff